No Prescribed Format For Providing Written Grounds Of Arrest: Delhi High Court Upholds NDPS Accused's Custody
The Delhi High Court has refused bail to an accused booked under the NDPS Act, holding that there is no legislatively or judicially prescribed format for communicating written grounds of arrest and that substantial compliance with the constitutional requirement would suffice in the facts of the case.Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the arrest memo prepared by the Delhi Police reflected...
The Delhi High Court has refused bail to an accused booked under the NDPS Act, holding that there is no legislatively or judicially prescribed format for communicating written grounds of arrest and that substantial compliance with the constitutional requirement would suffice in the facts of the case.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the arrest memo prepared by the Delhi Police reflected an “honest understanding” of the legal position and that any defect therein could not by itself entitle the accused to be released.
The bench made the observation while dismissing the bail plea of a man arrested on January 17, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act.
As per prosecution, commercial quantity 1.516 kg charas was recovered from the accused's premises.
The accused sought bail on the ground that written grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the arrest memo itself contained the reasons for arrest and that the accused had suffered no prejudice on account of the alleged non-supply of written grounds. It was further contended that the legal position requiring written communication of grounds of arrest had been clarified by the Supreme Court only after the accused's arrest.
At the outset, the High Court perused the Supreme Court's decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, State of Karnataka v. Darshan and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra.
It observed that neither Article 22(1) nor Section 50 CrPC expressly prescribe the format or timeframe for communicating the grounds of arrest, and what is material is whether the accused was made aware of the reasons for his arrest in a manner that enabled him to seek legal assistance and defend himself.
In the present case, the Court noted that the accused had been represented by counsel from the very first remand proceedings and had moved for bail shortly after his arrest, indicating that he had sufficient knowledge of the allegations against him.
The Court further found that the arrest memo issued by the Delhi Police substantially complied with the constitutional requirement as it enumerated the reasons for arrest, including the need to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, committing further offences, and evading court proceedings.
“The arrest memo in the present case was duly served on the accused/applicant and bears his signatures. The arrest memo at its top mentions that the same is “as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India”. That format of arrest memo was prepared by the Delhi Police in honest understanding of the legal position, and if the same is defective in any manner, the accused/applicant cannot claim right to be released. In my view, the compliance with the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest was substantial in the present case.
For, at the cost of repetition, it must be said that there is no legislatively or judicially prescribed specific format. It cannot be said that the investigator in the present case knowingly flouted any direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to deprive any right of the accused/applicant. Besides, in law there is no sharpline distinction between what is generic information and what is specific information.
Rather, there cannot be such distinction as in some cases, what may appear to be a generic information may also be specific to the accused, as in the present case. I am unable to convince myself that the said information as supplied to the accused/applicant was not sufficient for the accused/applicant to defend himself,” the Court observed.
It also highlighted the practical difficulties faced by investigating agencies in narcotics cases, observing that immediate action was required to trace the accused's alleged supplier and other members of the network.
Lastly, emphasising on the broader societal impact of narcotics offences, the Court observed:
“The illicit wealth generated through the drug trade also fuels organized crime and is often channelled into terrorist activities, thereby causing a grave threat to social stability, national security and public order.”
Accordingly, finding no grounds to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court dismissed the bail plea.
Appearance: Mr. Meghan and Mr. Vipul Shivhare, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Dinesh Kumar for Respondent
Case Title: Amar Thapa v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1865/2026